There is no god

[OldKingCole]

Inspired by another thread … I was surprised by the level of atheism professed … as I always though I was in a tiny, tiny minority.
would be interested to see the MN response.

IABU - there is a god
IANBU - there is no god

*exist

The question is, is god the goodie or the baddie? 🤔🤷‍♀️

That's the whole thing, the OT God was pretty much a genocidal power freak, so it would blame eve for its own mistakes.

I don't like genocide therefore I don't like any god.

Or before that, why should humans bow to a god, God's should bow to humanity

Why? For gods to bow to humanity the. That would necessitate the existence of gods which by definition are greater than, and worshipped by humanity. You could say supernatural beings should bow to humanity, and in most western spiritual beliefs this is true of 99% of supernatural beings. Where’s your logic? Research?

What about a Christian belief system that agreed with you on the OT God, the demiurge of what we now call Gnosticism?

What’s to stop it being both and neither, a source of everything?

Or a nothing?

If there is a god i can't help but think they'd be appalled at the behaviour of many of their followers and what's done in the name of religion.
Even comments on here, particularly the ones around gay people, are awful.

And that’s precisely what God is in certain belief systems eg Kabbalah. Ein

Philosopher Truzzi said ' extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof'. There is no proof. But there is faith.

It's interesting how many Christians have not read the Bible completely. In C of E, excerpts are chosen by the church, sometimes the same during the time of the year. But to have faith surely you have to read the complete book. And after reading, should follow years of study. This would inform and spur on faith rather than a general feeling of faith.
Other religions seem to focus on more study of their holy book.

@daemonologie

I don’t know about that. For Christians the OT is not the significant part and is not really studied that much. The focus is much more on NT and Jesus’ message - Love one another, etc.

The interesting thing when you do study some faiths like Judaism you understand the Christian 10 commandments are a kind of synthesised version of the 413 mitzhvot (apologies for any inaccuracies here - not intended).

So, Christianity took the parts from OT which give context to Christ and the focus is very much in the gospel and how one lives a Christian life in practice.

For all the atheist people who wonder what Christians do - you may only encounter the answer when in real emotional need - my experience has been that it kicks in then.

And actually I do know that the wool and linen thing was to distinguish non priests from priests, and slaves in Roman times were debtors with time limited bondage not like we might imagine slave etc etc. But I am not the one saying the bible should be read literally without taking historical context into consideration.

You're wrong again.
The Law was not given to all humankind. God made a covenant, or an agreement, with the descendants of Jacob, who became the nation of Israel. God gave his laws to this nation only. The Bible makes this clear in Deuteronomy 5:1-3 and Psalm 147:19, 20.
These laws on food, clothing, sexual, ethical, financial dealings, etc from Leviticus and elsewhere were given to the Jews, God’s people, to make them distinct from the nations around them and to teach the Israelites (the Jews) that they were God’s people.
The Israelites were God’s people and were to be set apart and special for God – holy. A host of laws, including those regarding food, clothing, sexuality, ethics, finances, and slavery, show this distinction. Throughout every aspect of Jewish life, from the manner in which they dressed, prepared meals, sowed a field, and even thought about sex, these cascading laws served as a reminder of the fact that they were God's people.

I am the LORD, who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy. Leviticus 11:45

These laws taught God’s people that holiness meant difference and distinction. They taught what it meant to be set apart and special for God.

Now onto the New Testament.
By the sacrifice of his life, however, Christ “abolished . . . the Law of commandments consisting in decrees, that he might create the two peoples (Israelite and non-Israelite) in union with himself into one new covenant with all peoples.
More than 600 laws that made up the Mosaic Law were replaced.
Jesus mentioned not one but two commands. First, he said: “You must love your God with your whole heart and with your whole soul and with your whole mind and with your whole strength.”
Second, Jesus said: “You must love your neighbor as yourself.”

So just to reiterate, pagans or gentiles were never subjected to Mosiac law ever. These laws were reserved only for the nation of Israel. In the aftermath of Christ's death, the nation of Isreal then became spiritual and Christians were born. Representing and facilitating the worship of God for the entire human race.

Using terms like ableist, and meandering with this theory and that theory isn't what critical thinking means.
Objectively assess, and assimilate information without bias and emotional subjectivity.

You outright called a poster on this thread a bigot.

No, I did not.
Evidence please, I'm 1000% sure you are wrong.
You've misread what I wrote.

@Notwavingbutsignalling i get what you're saying about the OT, for me to summarise the difference to the NT would fall short of doing justice to it. However, that is the purpose of the NT and the coming of JC. There is a stark contrast between both testaments in relation to how God changed. Less punishing and envious and more loving and forgiving.
To understand the NT, it's beneficial to read the OT imo.
I agree that in times of trial, faith becomes stronger and, I feel, more lasting.
Personally, not wishing to live past this mortal life, religion is not something I want to believe in. Although I've given it a good try.

@PrincessConstance
--------
By PrincessConstance
·

05/01/2023 11:32
themselves 304,000 times.
Basically, you wrote all that paragraph to disguise your attempted slur at the end. Bigot.🤔🙄😂
----------

Directed, as I recall, at @Letitrainletitrainletitrain

Are you going to apologise?

Sam and Dean from the show supernatural, mythical beings did respect the Winchesters, so why not in real life?

Besides there must be other purposes for god's than to just rule or try to rule humanity,

You've read it incorrectly.

@Letitrainletitrainletitrain
But if the only law that you are interested in carrying over from the new testament is that homosexuality is wrong because the old testament implies multiply through procreation (as opposed to the new testaments multiply by new followers) and you are not also on the S&B threads complaining about mixed fibres, and boycotting banks that charge interest on loans then it starts to sound like you are using religion to justify bigotry.

'Basically, you wrote all that paragraph to disguise your attempted slur at the end. Bigot'.

What I wrote at the end was stating the poster was implying I was a bigot.
NOT that they were a bigot.

Keep up the scholarship.
Are you going to apologize?

PrincessConstance · 05/01/2023 11:32
Start of your post - quote.
Letitrainletitrainletitrain · 05/01/2023 11:17
It's not deflecting to say that it's not actually banned in the bible only later translations, it's in fact incredibly relevant
The bible is also positive about adoption, so being fruitful does not have to be procreation personally.
The new testament recommends being fruitful through converting others to the faith of christianity, not through procreation.
And ultimately the command to multiply is in the old testament. As is the command not the wear mixed fibres. Or that you shouldn't sit in a seat that a woman on her period has sat on because she is unclean. it also gives you instructions on how to deal with your slave. And it's okay for men to visit prostitutes (but not women of course). And women are supposed to shut up and obey men. Burning incest is prohibited, charging interest in loans etc
Now many say that the rules of the old testament were over ridden by Jesus and the new testament. Which is why its now okay to wear mixed fibres, and have a mortgage, and an opinion as woman.
But if the only law that you are interested in carrying over from the new testament is that homosexuality is wrong because the old testament implies multiply through procreation (as opposed to the new testaments multiply by new followers) and you are not also on the S&B threads complaining about mixed fibres, and boycotting banks that charge interest on loans then it starts to sound like you are using religion to justify bigotry.
Show quote history
End of quote here

Start of your response here :
I think to be perfectly honest you do not understand what you either have read or are reading.
I will point out however the Bible is a rigorous academically written book, the OT-NT cross-reference themselves 304,000 times.
Basically, you wrote all that paragraph to disguise your attempted slur at the end. Bigot.🤔🙄😂
End of your response here.

If that last sentence isn't yours, you should have set up your post more clearly or copy/pasted more accurately, or possibly proofread your post. Also the poster you are responding to isn't in the habit of using emojis, whereas you are.

Letitrainletitrainletitrain- Posted-then it starts to sound like you are using religion to justify bigotry.
It was quite clear the poster was trying to imply I was a bigot. I merely called them out.
That is what my last sentence says.
Basically, you wrote all that paragraph to disguise your attempted slur at the end. Bigot.

Maybe you need to read what is being said before posting.
Are you going to apologize, or are you going to continue to plow on with belligerence because you incorrectly accused me of name-calling?
I know exactly what happened, posters threw their proverbial teddies out of the pram and started misreading. They then threw accusations of bigotry because I wrote something they didn't like.

I'm not going to apologise for your awful handling of punctuation. If you'd used a : between 'end' and 'Bigot.' you would have made yourself clear. Or you could have just said 'You have used that entire paragraph to justify calling me a bigot'. But you didn't, you just wrote another screed of gibberish.

And @Letitrainletitrainletitrain 's post was completely fair, because the only thing you have been banging on and on and on about is homosexuality, to the point of putting up strawmen about 'but what if 30% of the population suddenly became homosexual?', which you know full well would never happen.

If you want your Biblical stance taken seriously, spread your ire equally among all the 'sins' quoted in the Bible. And maybe learn a little humility and accept that there are theologians and biblical scholars out there who do not agree with the ones you like to quote, and that neither you nor any of them can ever know who was right.

Ah, so you can quite clearly understand my posts except when YOU failed to read them correctly. Now it is my fault because I didn't punctuate in a manner you could understand.

I wasn't banging on about homosexuality at all.
You and others have been banging on about it, on, and on and on.
Quite simply because you didn't like what I wrote and others wrote. You took offense then launched an attack.
Letitrain was wrong, just like they were wrong when attempting to use laws set for only the Jewish nation to imply the bible is either cruel or ridiculous. They clearly didn't know the differentiation in the bible between the Jewish nation and the pagan nations.

@PrincessConstance I accept that I misunderstood you. I'm very glad you weren't name calling. Now can you please accept that your 'what if 30% of the population turned gay' is a massive strawman and therefore a bad faith argument? And can you present me with some evidence that your biblical scholars are right and all the others who disagree are wrong, said evidence not to be limited to 'The bible is true because it says so in the bible'? If you want to be taken seriously as a scholar, you should use the methodologies of scholarship and you have so far completely failed to do so.

Well don’t forget, for the vast majority of Christianity’s history reading of the scriptures by lay people was discouraged and actually almost impossible. Because Christianity has been heavily controlled by the state since Constantinople. Any deviation quashed (Luther only had success through luck and peoples political motivation). The Albegensian crusades “kill them all God will know his own” saw Christian’s wiping out other views on Christianity (notably where women had more of a role, contraception, suicide and homosexuality weren’t stigmatised).

Of course if you read the whole Bible, understand the Hebrew language, Gematria, the Greek sense of humour, the Romans, the historical context of when the books were written, the other contemporary Christian texts (eg look at the nag hamardi texts, other gospels) to none but a few and form your own opinion of what’s there.